This point is worth elaborating. It is wrong to frame this issue as some debate about what are the responsibilities and limits of free speech. Reasonable people can differ on that question. But this issue is NOT about that.
The nation-state of France has been created to advance the interests of the French people- that is the nation. A state has a legitimate *monopoly* of power - that is to create laws, and enforce them, with violent force if required.
Thread: Interesting debate online on UCC. Will blog my views when I find the time, but the headlines- I am in favour 1. Cultural diversity doesn’t always need different family laws for different groups. 2. The liberal argument is clear- the state should frame laws for individuals
BUT even if one doesn’t accept the liberal argument, Indian conservatives have rightly embraced one aspect of modernity which is nationalism. Nationalism argues that the nation is a corporate body that seeks its sovereign state to advance its goals.
Different systems of law altogether (as opposed to mere provisions for disadvantaged groups as an exception) detract from that principle of a unified corporation. As a “strong society, weak state” (to use the Daren Acemoglu framing) India has been outside the “narrow corridor”..
Long thread: Poorly argued column on why Modi doesn’t feature in a list of India’s reformist PMs. Since some version of this argument is used by many, counters in this thread, with an argument of what I think is the fundamental misdiagnosis by most (lazy) analyses
First the headlines: 1. Modi IS a reformist PM 2. As a reformer he clearly ranks below PVNR, it is arguable if he is tied with ABV or not; including MMS in the list of reformist PMs is 🙄 3. However Modi’s economic mgmt. has been poor; econ. management is NOT = reforms
So on q1- is he a reformist PM? Just tot up a list- IBC; inflation targeting; GST; RERA; infra financing through InVITS, TOTs and REITs; corporate tax changes. This is before current round where every sector in the Indian economy is opened up for private sector ...
Long thread: I see this 👇 line of argument often enough in public policy analysis that I think we should coin a phrase for it- “The Panacea Fallacy”. It is a flawed argument that argues against a policy action by pointing out the banal fact that it is not a panacea
We can do this with regard to ANY policy, even one that is very effective: “Have economic reforms ended poverty completely?”, “The US has the most powerful armed forces in the world, yet their people still die in armed conflict” etc. The value add of such an analysis is low.
The right way to evaluate a policy step is not to ask whether it is a panacea or not (newsflash- nothing is), but to ask - does it confer significant benefits, with limited costs as compared to the alternatives (which includes do nothing) and is it feasible to do politically
Alert- Extremely long thread: What would an agenda for Indian conservatism look like? My response to this thread by @shrikanth_krish which has an interesting diagnosis and some innovative and eccentric solutions
Firstly, a clarification on the definition and context: By conservatism I don't mean right wing. There may be areas of convergence with the right wing, but I arrive at these positions very differently
The core context for what I am referring to as conservatism is the insight that society is a complex, adaptive system. And hence any set of policy positions adduced solely by reasoning from first principles is ineffective since it has unintended consequences